The Science of Disinformation

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:59 am

paulzig wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:51 am
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:52 am

No they don't!
Many elements form compounds with hydrogen.
Then how do you explain the Hydrogen bond in water H and O?

If there is no affinity then why do they exist as a compound, why is there a bond there?

In a race engine, there is no natural affinity for a piston to a rod and a crank if you have those little C-clips for the piston pins its more of a supernatural repulsion because they do NOT want to go in there with ease.
This was explained in the vids I posted and your not going to watch them, they can explain these things scientificly.

The engine analogy is the problem you have with cells coming together,you need all of it to produce a working engine or you have no engine and part of an engine with fuel for energy will never become a complete engine.

It takes all of the parts and information to be a working engine.

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:39 am

GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:59 am


This was explained in the vids I posted and your not going to watch them, they can explain these things scientificly.

The engine analogy is the problem you have with cells coming together,you need all of it to produce a working engine or you have no engine and part of an engine with fuel for energy will never become a complete engine.

It takes all of the parts and information to be a working engine.
I doubt any scientists would dismiss the forming of bonds between molecules and electron affinity.

An engine and cells coming together are apples and oranges, as I explained the engine does not form natural bonds like Hydrogen for instance. The cells have all the information needed to be a cell so its complete. The same Hydrogen bonds occur in DNA too..

Surely you are not disputing that?

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:39 pm

paulzig wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:39 am
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:59 am


This was explained in the vids I posted and your not going to watch them, they can explain these things scientificly.

The engine analogy is the problem you have with cells coming together,you need all of it to produce a working engine or you have no engine and part of an engine with fuel for energy will never become a complete engine.

It takes all of the parts and information to be a working engine.
I doubt any scientists would dismiss the forming of bonds between molecules and electron affinity.

An engine and cells coming together are apples and oranges, as I explained the engine does not form natural bonds like Hydrogen for instance. The cells have all the information needed to be a cell so its complete. The same Hydrogen bonds occur in DNA too..

Surely you are not disputing that?
Some things bonding and all of the things bonding to create what is needed is a scientific proven impossibility as was covered in the last vid.

Where did that info come from?
What you just did there was take "things can bond" to "everything is already there", I agree everything is already there and has to be and it requires creation for that to happen!

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:17 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:39 pm

Some things bonding and all of the things bonding to create what is needed is a scientific proven impossibility as was covered in the last vid.

Where did that info come from?
What you just did there was take "things can bond" to "everything is already there", I agree everything is already there and has to be and it requires creation for that to happen!
I am telling you that it is there complete due to natural processes, which have been proven to occur. You claim a creator and the burden of proof lies on you. Your analogy with an engine or a clock is dishonest because these things do not have these natural affinities.

I have been keeping track on the news and there has not yet been any major announcements or a nobel prize handed out to anyone who has proven creation.

I wont watch your videos because they are all alone the same line, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, footprints of man with dinosaurs, and of course that cretin Kent Hovind. All of this garbage has been debunked already. You post video after video, saying disprove this disprove that there is a library of 10000s of hours if this crap you have an almost inexhaustible amount and you expect someone to go thru it all and 'disprove'.

Just out of curiosity do we have a clue who/what this creator is or is it an unknown one?

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:19 pm

paulzig wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:17 pm
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:39 pm

Some things bonding and all of the things bonding to create what is needed is a scientific proven impossibility as was covered in the last vid.

Where did that info come from?
What you just did there was take "things can bond" to "everything is already there", I agree everything is already there and has to be and it requires creation for that to happen!
I am telling you that it is there complete due to natural processes, which have been proven to occur. You claim a creator and the burden of proof lies on you. Your analogy with an engine or a clock is dishonest because these things do not have these natural affinities.

I have been keeping track on the news and there has not yet been any major announcements or a nobel prize handed out to anyone who has proven creation.

I wont watch your videos because they are all alone the same line, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, footprints of man with dinosaurs, and of course that cretin Kent Hovind. All of this garbage has been debunked already. You post video after video, saying disprove this disprove that there is a library of 10000s of hours if this crap you have an almost inexhaustible amount and you expect someone to go thru it all and 'disprove'.

Just out of curiosity do we have a clue who/what this creator is or is it an unknown one?
None of the videos I posted had any of that out side of what is done in science on a regular bases, outside of probability you are believing the supernatural and all of what you have claimed falls into that box.

It's interesting that I have read and watched everything posted by you guys and can refute it as well as back what I say with scientific evidence but you can not.

It's like any investigation, you have to examine "all" of the evidence to come to a rational conclusion and at this point there is not enough for evolution to stand up in court.

There is a good reason why here say is not admissible in court.

At some point you have to accept what science shows to be fact and know magical model or math equation is going to change it.

Since you claim "all" of that garbage has been debunked surly you can show at least one example?

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1976
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by joe 90 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:28 pm

Can you imagine going to court .....I'm not paying child support because it was a virgin birth.

Just think.......if there was such a thing as DNA testing 2000 years ago?
Can you prove a virgin birth?
Well no, it was a mistranslation meaning the first born.

But wasn't it supposed to be some angel that came down and did the deed?

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:06 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Since you claim "all" of that garbage has been debunked surly you can show at least one example?
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

http://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc ... -examined/ This one lists some papers and links to rebuttals/critique/analysis.

I'll give them credit though, at least some of these papers were submitted for peer review...

I dont begrudge a man his faith though, I have no problems with you believing in something higher, and evolution doesnt even deal with that. It simply says 'here is life' lets work backwards and see explore the mechanisms of evolution. It doesnt deal with how life came from non-life or the creation of the universe.

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:26 pm


GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:34 pm

paulzig wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:06 pm
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:19 pm

Since you claim "all" of that garbage has been debunked surly you can show at least one example?
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

http://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc ... -examined/ This one lists some papers and links to rebuttals/critique/analysis.

I'll give them credit though, at least some of these papers were submitted for peer review...

I dont begrudge a man his faith though, I have no problems with you believing in something higher, and evolution doesnt even deal with that. It simply says 'here is life' lets work backwards and see explore the mechanisms of evolution. It doesnt deal with how life came from non-life or the creation of the universe.
Proof would be a scientist actually showing the flaws from a scientific stand point...Kind of like the videos I posted.
I see how it works, I just need to post the words that someone says in an article.
Will actual articles from the scientist in the last video do? Probably not, but any who!

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/free- ... he-rescue/
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/the-o ... formation/
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/therm ... n-of-life/
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/evolu ... darwinism/
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/askin ... y-and-mit/
https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
BIO-Complexity: A New, Peer-Reviewed Science Journal, Open to the ID Debate
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/05/bioco ... eerreview/


Do I need to go hunt down paper from the other scientist so you can refuse to read those also?

A few other fun facts.
Considering the pivotal role that these reviewers play, it’s important that they’re up to snuff.

So it’s rather disturbing to learn that a major new study concludes reviewers don’t improve with experience. Actually, they get demonstrably worse. What best distinguishes reviewers is merely how quickly their performance falls, according to Michael Callaham.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scienc ... t-practice
This one is rather lengthy because it documents and links all of its facts so that is is not just hear say!
https://creation.com/creationism-scienc ... eer-review

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:38 pm

That is what they do in those links, they list the argument and a rebuttal.

The last one lists potential for falsification, or something that would completely disprove what it says.

There are 1000s more papers on evolution, but why list peer reviewed scientific papers by qualified scientists when you have youtube right...

But its all a big conspiracy against creationists right?

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

paulzig wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:38 pm
That is what they do in those links, they list the argument and a rebuttal.

The last one lists potential for falsification, or something that would completely disprove what it says.

There are 1000s more papers on evolution, but why list peer reviewed scientific papers by qualified scientists when you have youtube right...

But its all a big conspiracy against creationists right?
Your link is an entire page claiming others or wrong.. has stuff like this.
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Nothing resembling an actual scientific hypothesis or theory is presented by this paper and it contains exactly zero evidence.
It does however give a great example of a truly weird bit of wishful thinking, and yes he is a kook, but then most creationists are, so I guess he fits right in. – Fail

Which is exactly what that entire paper is full of claims against others work with zero evidence for their claim!

And then they link you to this article from 2010! https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... new-paper/

And the best they have are mutations which have never been shown to be beneficial and then they give you this scientifically proven can not be replicated or shown to have anyway of working but they claim it is proof!
Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs): “An FCT is a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule. Examples of FCTs are: promoters; enhancers; insulators; Shine-Dalgarno sequences; tRNA genes; miRNA genes; protein coding sequences; organellar targeting- or localization-signals; intron/extron splice sites; codons specifying the binding site of a protein for another molecule (such as its substrate, another protein, or a small allosteric regulator); codons specifying a processing site of a protein (such as a cleavage, myristoylation, or phosphorylation site); polyadenylation signals; and transcription and translation termination signals.”

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:08 am

GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

Your link is an entire page claiming others or wrong...
Yes, you wanted rebuttals didnt you? Critique of intelligent design?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... on_descent

Heres one on evolution, fully referenced down the bottom of each page with potential for falsification included.

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:10 am

GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

Your link is an entire page claiming others or wrong...
Yes, you wanted rebuttals didnt you? Critique of intelligent design?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ...

Heres one on evolution, fully referenced down the bottom of each page with potential for falsification included.

You have time to read creationist stuff, so why dont you take some time out and educate yourself on evolution without the attitude that it cant be right because bible says

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3343
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:25 am

paulzig wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:10 am
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

Your link is an entire page claiming others or wrong...
Yes, you wanted rebuttals didnt you? Critique of intelligent design?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ...

Heres one on evolution, fully referenced down the bottom of each page with potential for falsification included.

You have time to read creationist stuff, so why dont you take some time out and educate yourself on evolution without the attitude that it cant be right because bible says
Yes I was just reading through scroll to the bottom and look at the age of the info.
So far what I have read I have already read or is included teaching by most ID teachers, that is one difference I have seen and respect with a lot of the ID/Creation teaching I have seen is that they teach you what is taught and what the issue is from actual experiments as well as the references to go and study it for your self.

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:43 am

GARY C wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:25 am
paulzig wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:10 am
GARY C wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

Your link is an entire page claiming others or wrong...
Yes, you wanted rebuttals didnt you? Critique of intelligent design?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ...

Heres one on evolution, fully referenced down the bottom of each page with potential for falsification included.

You have time to read creationist stuff, so why dont you take some time out and educate yourself on evolution without the attitude that it cant be right because bible says
Yes I was just reading through scroll to the bottom and look at the age of the info.
So far what I have read I have already read or is included teaching by most ID teachers, that is one difference I have seen and respect with a lot of the ID/Creation teaching I have seen is that they teach you what is taught and what the issue is from actual experiments as well as the references to go and study it for your self.
How do you do experiments for intelligent design? How do you potentially falsify intelligent design? I have seen the reference list and the age of some of the papers, yes this is not a problem the information stands the test of time. I have studied evolution and I have come to the conclusion that its a fact.

You didnt answer last time, do we have a clue who this creator is? Is it the christan god as described in the bible or some other god? I wonder who created this god.

Post Reply